Restoration Goal Technical Feedback

Transcription

1 Restoration Goal Technical Feedback San Joaquin River Restoration Program November 17, 2009 CSU Stanislaus, Turlock, CA 1 Agenda Introductions NMFS Public draft Recovery Plan for Central Valley Salmon and Steelhead Background Models and Analytic Tools Hydrology Temperature Flood Hydraulics Sediment Vegetation Groundwater 2D Hydraulics Fisheries Comments and Questions Next Meeting 2 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 1

2 Settlement Background 1988 Lawsuit challenging renewal of the long-term Friant Division contracts 2004 Federal Judge rules Reclamation violated Section 5937 of the Fish and Game Code 2005 Settlement negotiations reinitiated to avoid remedy phase 2006 Settlement Agreement signed and implementation begins 2009 Federal legislation enacted 3 Settlement Goals Restoration Goal To restore and maintain fish populations in good condition in the main stem of the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River, including naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish. Water Management Goal To reduce or avoid adverse water supply impacts to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors that may result from the Interim Flows and Restoration Flows provided for in the Settlement. 4 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 2

3 Restoration Area Hills Ferry Barrier 5 Merced River Turlock 150 miles of River Historically Different Reaches Water Supply Infrastructure Flood Control Bypasses Urban Areas Historically Disconnected Reaches Mariposa BP Sand Slough Sack Dam Los Banos Firebaugh 3 Mendota Dam Mendota 2B Bifurcation Structure 2A 4B 1 4B 2 4A Eastside BP Chowchilla BP Gravelly Ford 1B Bear Creek San Joaquin River Fresno Chowchilla Madera 1A Atwater Merced 5 Friant Dam Restoration Releases at Friant Dam Average Restoration Release Rate (ft 3 /s) Wet (over 2500 TAF Inflow, TAF Release) Normal-Wet ( TAF Inflow, TAF Release) Normal-Dry ( TAF Inflow, TAF Release) Dry ( TAF Inflow, TAF Release) Critical-High ( TAF Inflow, TAF Release) Critical-Low (0-400 TAF Inflow, TAF Release) 0 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb 6 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 3

4 Program Roles 7 Context for Today SJRRP Components WY2010 Interim Flows EA/IS Operations Program EIS/EIR Fish Management Plan Restoration Flow Guidelines Site-Specific Projects Water Management Actions Today Modeling and Analysis Tools for the SJRRP 8 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 4

5 Introduction to Modeling Subgroup Model Selection Common Sources Information Exchange Consistent Assumptions 9 Water Supply: CalSim 10 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 5

6 Water Supply Model Overview Water Supply for the California Central Valley (CVP and SWP) under alternative: Land Uses (e.g Level of Development) Infrastructure Developments (e.g. Temperance Flats) New Water Supply Policies (e.g. SJRRP) Mass-Balance Accounting Monthly Volumes Historic Hydrologic Conditions (Oct 1921 Sep 2003) Simplifications of Water Quality and Delta Conditions 11 Water Supply Model Overview (cont d) 12 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 6

7 Water Supply Model: Starting Point for SJRRP 13 Water Supply Model: Infrastructure Updates to CalSim for SJRRP Infrastructure Inclusion of Mendota Pool Bypass Inclusion of Friant-Kern Canal reaches Inclusion of groundwater facilities to receive Paragraph 16(b) water Inclusion of Pumping Station on Lower San Joaquin River 14 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 7

8 Water Supply Model: Operational Updates to CalSim for SJRRP Operational Rules Operation of SJRRP releases by year type Operation of SJRRP recapture: Along the San Joaquin River In the Delta Operation of Paragraph 16(b) Water 15 Use of Water Supply Model Results Diversions at Friant Dam Basis for Deliveries to Friant Long-Term Contractors (Class 1 & 2) and Others Basis for evaluating Paragraph 16(a) & (b) water Basis for Groundwater Pumping in Friant and Other Districts Releases at Friant Dam Frame Overall Operations within Restoration Area Used in assessing Delta Pumping Conditions 16 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 8

9 Alternatives Formulation: CalSim Evaluations Purpose of CalSim runs Understand range of operations for Friant Dam Understand implications to CVP and SWP supplies Understand range of recapture for potential recirculation to Friant Evaluations Exist for: 1. Baseline 2. 1 SJRRP Alternative: Friant Dam Operations are identical for Alternatives A, B & C 3. Supplemental analyses to bracket range of operations 17 CalSim Baseline & SJRRP Alternative 18 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 9

10 CalSim Supplemental Analyses 1. Stair-step Release Requirement 2. SJRRP without Paragraph 16 water 3. Flexible Flow shifts (forward & backward) 4. Full 10% Buffer Flows 5. Capacity limitations in Restoration Area, no Mendota Bypass 6. Restored Friant-Kern Canal capacity 7. Wanger Bookend on OMR Requirement in Delta (-750 cfs) 19 Hydrology and Temperature 20 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 10

11 Monthly to Daily Conversion Purpose: Develop a set of daily Millerton Reservoir operations suitable for use in San Joaquin River routing and temperature modeling. Uses the Daily Millerton Reservoir Model Developed for USJRBSI Monthly boundary conditions from CalSim interpolated to convert to daily Perform a simplified daily routing Release Average Monthly Release Oct 1st 15th 1st Dec 15th 1st Nov 15th Date 21 Water Operations Daily Millerton Reservoir Model How it works Start with initial storage plus SJR Inflow Madera and FKC diversion (CalSim) SJR Minimum Release (CalSim) SJR Snowmelt Pre-release (CalSim) Fill Conservation Storage Flood release to Madera, FKC up to capacity limits Flood release to SJR up to 8,000 CFS channel capacity Fill Flood Control Storage Flood spill to SJR Delivery Flood Minimum Required Snowmelt Flood (8000cfs) Spill Delivery Flood 22 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 11

12 Water Operations Daily Millerton Reservoir Model Results Final results are a set of daily Millerton Reservoir operations San Joaquin River Release Routing Example Daily Release (TAF) Millerton Storage (TAF) Oct-82 Nov-82 Dec-82 Jan-83 Feb-83 Mar-83 Apr-83 May-83 Jun-83 Jul-83 Aug-83 Sep-83 Oct-83 SJR Min SJR Snow SJR Rain Millerton Inflow Routed SJR Release SJR Channel Capacity Flood Control Storage Limit Final Storage Millerton Minimum Storage 23 Daily CalSim Millerton Reservoir Release Comparison CALSIM Vs Disaggregated Millerton Storage 600 Storage (TAF) Annual operations match well 100 Daily CALSIM 0 10/1/21 10/1/31 10/1/41 10/1/51 10/1/61 10/1/71 10/1/81 10/1/91 10/1/ Daily Vs CALSIM SJR Release Magnitude different from monthly to daily boundary condition process. Higher peaks in daily release is expected. Flow (cfs) Daily CALSIM SJR Channel Capacity Water Year 24 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 12

13 Daily Historical Millerton Reservoir Release Comparison Not expected to match exactly. Timing of peaks matches very well. Historic Vs Daily Millerton Reservoir Release to San Joaquin River 40,000 35,000 Final Daily Historic 30,000 25,000 Flow (cfs) 20,000 15,000 10,000 5, Temperature Millerton Reservoir Purpose: Simulate San Joaquin River Release Temperature 2-D Reservoir Temperature Model based on CE-QUAL-W2 Developed in support of USJRBSI Hourly time step from 1980 through 2003 Outlet Spill 26 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 13

14 Temperature Millerton Reservoir How it works Computes temperature profile at dam Use profile to compute release temperatures Thermocline Cold Water Pool 27 Temperature Millerton Reservoir Release Temperatures High, short spikes in maximum temperatures due to spills Seasonal increase in Oct-Dec due to reduction in Cold Water Pool Existing-Median Settlement-Median Existing-Max Settlement-Max 70 Temperature (ºF) Jan 1-Feb 1-Mar 1-Apr 1-May 1-Jun 1-Jul 1-Aug 1-Sep 1-Oct 1-Nov 1-Dec 28 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 14

15 Temperature San Joaquin River Millerton Reservoir to Merced River Purpose Route daily flows and simulate San Joaquin River water temperatures 1-D River Temperature Model based on HEC5Q Hourly time step 1980 through How it works HEC-5 routes flow through the system Flow splits at Temperature San Joaquin Flow Routing 5 Chowchilla Bypass Mendota Bypass (With Project Only) Sand Slough Mariposa Bypass HEC-5Q simulates temperatures of the flows Mariposa BP Sand Slough Sack Dam Hills Ferry Barrier Los Banos Firebaugh 3 Mendota Dam Mendota 2B Bifurcation Structure 2A 4B 1 4B 2 4A Eastside BP Chowchilla BP Gravelly Ford 1B Merced River Bear Creek San Joaquin River Fresno Madera 1A Turlock Atwater Chowchilla Merced 30 Friant Dam Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 15

16 Temperature Sensitivity Studies Several sets of sensitivity studies were performed to frame the system temperature response. Millerton release temperature w/wo restoration SJR temperatures at different flow rates Potential effects of increased riparian vegetation and channel modification on SJR temperatures * No Mendota Bypass in sensitivity modeling 31 Temperature Sensitivity Studies _Flow Rate Impact on Temperature 90 Mean Daily Temperature in May (degrees F) Friant Dam Gravelly Ford Chowchilla Bypass Mendota Pool Sack Dam Sand Slough Mariposa Bypass Bear River Salt Slough Merced River T=55 Q=350 T=50 Q=350 T=45 Q=350 T=55 Q=2,000 T=50 Q=2,000 T=45 Q=2,000 T=55 Q=4,500 T=50 Q=4,500 T=45 Q=4,500 Key: T: Friant Dam Release Temperature (degrees F) Q: Friant Dam Release (cfs) River Location (Mile Post) Median of simulated temperatures in San Joaquin River (May) 32 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 16

17 Temperature Sensitivity Studies _Flow Rate Impact on Temperature 90 Mean Daily Temperature in August (degrees F) Friant Dam Gravelly Ford Chowchilla Bypass Mendota Pool Sack Dam Sand Slough Mariposa Bypass Stevinson Salt Slough Merced River T=62 Q=350 T=55 Q=350 T=50 Q=350 T=62 Q=700 T=55 Q=700 T=50 Q=700 Key: T: Friant Dam Release Temperature (degrees F) Q: Friant Dam Release (cfs) River Location (Mile Post) Median of simulated temperatures in San Joaquin River (August) 33 Temperature Riparian and Channel Modification Impacts Increased Riparian Channel Modification Reduces peak summer temperatures 3-5 degrees but still at or over 80 F Maintains biologically better temperatures 2-5 weeks later in the year. Plots at Gravelly Ford, approximately 40 miles downstream of Millerton Lake 34 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 17

18 Temperature Major Conclusions Ambient conditions are a very important factor in water temperatures. (It gets hot there!) Flow is more effective in maintaining cooler water temperatures than release temperature Equilibrium temperature is relatively independent from the flow. Equilibrium temperature is usually attained in Reach 5 in winter/spring, reach 2B in summer and Reach 2A in the fall. Riparian shading and channel modifications have limited potential for significant cooling in the Restoration Area 35 Unsteady Flow (UNET) Modeling for Flood Damage Analysis California Department of Water Resources and Tetra Tech, Inc. 36 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 18

19 General Description of UNET Model UNET: One-Dimensional Unsteady Flow Through a Full Network of Open Channels (USACE, 2001a). Model Capabilities: Routes flood hydrographs through network of channels and storage areas. Flow diversions. Hydraulic structures (bridges, weirs, etc.). Levee overtopping and failures. Original UNET model developed for Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins Comprehensive Study (Comp Study, USACE, 2001b). Comp Study Model geometry based on 1998 (in-channel) and 2000 (overbank) topography. 37 Model Input Model geometry and network connectivity. Upstream and tributary inflow hydrographs for various storm events (6) and storm centerings (5). Downstream and internal boundary conditions. Hydraulic roughness (Manning s n-value). Diversion structure operating criteria. Levee information (alignment, top of levee elevation, likely failure point, breach elevation). 38 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 19

20 Levees: Likely Failure Points (LFPs) Subreach Number of LFPs U/S LFP RM D/S LFP RM Average LFPs Spacing (miles) Subreach 2A Subreach 2B 0 NA NA NA Subreach Subreach 4A Subreach 4B Subreach 4B Modifications to Comp Study Model Revised operating criteria at Chowchilla Bifurcation Structure and San Joaquin River Control Structure. Phase I Settlement Agreement. Setback levees in Reach 2B (above Bypass Channel). 475 cfs main-channel capacity in Reach 4B. No levee strengthening required. Phase II Settlement Agreement. Same as Phase I plus setback levees in Reach 4B. Strengthened levees at two locations in Reach 4B. 40 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 20

21 Operating Rules: Bifurcation Structure Flood Control Manual Historical Practice *Rules modified when flow in Subreach 3 would exceed 4,500 cfs capacity 41 Operating Rules: San Joaquin River Control Structure at Sand Slough Flood Control Manual Adaptive Practice (Phase I) Historical Practice Adaptive Practice (Phase II) 42 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 21

22 Model Scenarios Scenario Geometry Operating Rules 1 Without Project Conditions Flood Control Manual 2 Without Project Conditions Historical Practice Phase I Settlement Agreement Conditions Phase I Settlement Agreement Conditions Phase II Settlement Agreement Conditions Phase II Settlement Agreement Conditions Flood Control Manual Adaptive Practice (Phase I) Flood Control Manual Adaptive Practice (Phase II) 43 Model Runs Scenario Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6 Event 10 yr 25 yr 50 yr 100 yr 200 yr 500 yr 10 yr 25 yr 50 yr 100 yr 200 yr 500 yr 10 yr 25 yr 50 yr 100 yr 200 yr 500 yr 10 yr 25 yr 50 yr 100 yr 200 yr 500 yr 10 yr 25 yr 50 yr 100 yr 200 yr 500 yr 10 yr 25 yr 50 yr 100 yr 200 yr 500 yr Storm Centering El Nido Friant Kings Newman Vernalis 6 scenarios, 6 storm events, 5 storm centerings = 180 finite channel runs. Additional 180 infinite channel runs. Approximately 20-day long simulations. 15-minute computer run time for each simulation. 44 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 22

23 Model Results Effects of project in Reach 2B: Historical/Adaptive Practice Operating Rules (100-year Event, Friant Storm Centering) 45 Model Results Effects of project in Reach 4B1: Flood Control Manual Operating Rules (100-year Event, Friant Storm Centering) 46 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 23

24 Model Results Effects of project in Reach 4B1: Historical/Adaptive Practice Operating Rules (100-year Event, Friant Storm Centering) 47 Model Results Effects of project in Reach 4B2: Historical/Adaptive Practice Operating Rules (100-year Event, Friant Storm Centering) 48 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 24

25 Stage-Frequency Curves for FDA Model results used to develop maximum stage - frequency curves for input to Flood Damage Analysis. Stage in Feet Exceedence Frequency per 100 Years 90 Top of Levee PFP LFP PNP Levee Toe Exceedence Interval in Years 49 Sediment Transport Modeling 50 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 25

26 Sediment Monitoring Bed Material Size Pebble Counts Volumetric Samples Photographic techniques 51 Photographic Techniques 52 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 26

27 Sediment Monitoring Suspended and Bedload Transport 5 locations for main stem sampling from bridge, cableway, boat or wading HW 41, Skaggs Bridge, Gravelly Ford, below Chowchilla, below Mendota Dam DH- 38, Photo from Photo from USGS water image library TR2- Photo from vulcan.wr.usgs.gov 53 Sediment Transport Modeling Model Objectives Assess impact of Project alternatives on the sediment transport in San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to Merced River Changes to river bed material Changes to bed elevation Changes to river planform Assess gravel mobilization Input to vegetation/fish habitat analysis Support channel and floodplain design 54 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 27

28 Sediment Transport Modeling Methods Geomorphic studies Analysis of aerial photographs Analysis of historical accounts and data Mobilization studies in Reach 1 Compute flows at which sediment is mobilized in Reach 1 Use 1D and 2D hydraulic models (HEC-RAS and SRH-2D) One-Dimensional Sediment transport modeling Compute changes to bed elevation and bed material throughout project reach Use SRH-1D 55 Application to San Joaquin Data Used Aerial photographs, site visits Daily average flow predictions generated using CALSIM II and a daily submodel Cross section geometry 1998 survey of the COE. HEC- RAS model from Mussetter Enginnering Bed material bulk surface and subsurface samples collected in all reaches where access was possible Sediment loads none available Modeling is not done independent of other analyses 56 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 28

29 Geomorphology: Changes since Friant Dam in Reach 1 Yellow is pre-dam active channel Analyzed 1938 and 2007 photos Width reduction and channel narrowing due to reduced flows, channel incision, and vegetation encroachment Reduction in channel complexity fewer side channels, less variability 57 Hydrology: Changes Due to SJRRP Friant Tailwater Flow-Duration 100,000 Mean Daily Discharge (cfs). 10,000 1, Historical Baseline Alternative A Fraction of days Mean Daily Discharge is equaled or exceeded Initial flow estimate show that, on average, the frequency of flows greater than 8,000 cfs are decreased because Friant spills less 58 often under the SJRRP than under Baseline Conditions Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 29

30 Incipient Motion and Mobilization Fraction of Samples where Shield Number of is exceeded Excedance of Shield's number of in Project Reaches 1a and 1b Reach flow (cfs) 1a fit 1a fit 1b Flow (cfs) 59 Incipient Motion and Mobilization of Riffles Relative number of sites mobilized Count > Incipient Motion Slight Mobilization Reach 1a Significant Mobilization Historical Baseline Alt A Full Mobilization Reference Shear 60 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 30

31 2D Incipient Motion Analysis Work by Tt-MEI Grain Shear Stress Computed from SRH-2D Results Riffle gradations from field sampling Riffle cfs D 50 =39.4 mm D 84 =100.0 mm % Sand=3.8% 61 Sediment Transport Modeling SRH-1D: numerical model to predict erosion and deposition XC i Q s,i-1 Water column Q s,i S e,i Active Layer Sub- Layer 62 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 31

32 Bed Elevation (ft) Erosion and Deposition: Friant to Mendota Reach 2B Reach 2A Initial Baseline Future Alt A with ALS Future Alt A with MLS Reach 1B Reach 1A Distance from Mondota Dam (ft) 63 Erosion and Deposition: Mendota to Merced Bed Elevation (ft) Initial Baseline Future Alternative A Merced River Mud Slough Salt Slough Bear Creek Below Mariposa Start of Mariposa Bypass Start of Eastside Bypass Sand Slough Control Hwy 152 Bridge Sack Dam Mondota Dam Distance from Merced River Confluence (ft) 64 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 32

33 Application to Reach 4B Bed Elevation (ft) Initial Max 475 cfs goes to 4B1 70 Max 4500cfs goes to 4B Mariposa Turner Island Road Distance from Merced River Confluence (ft) Sand Slough 65 Current Erosion in lower Eastside Bypass and Reach 5 Degradation in Eastside Bypass Degradation in San Joaquin Reach 5 66 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 33

34 Summary Reach 1 project is likely to reduce the period of time the flows are above 2000 cfs, and therefore reduce the sediment transport in Reach 1 bed will remain stable with or without project Reach 2 slightly more erosion is predicted in Reach 2a with project deposition possible in reach 2b with or without project, potentially slightly more under with project Reach 3 and 4a relatively stable with some increase erosion possible under project conditions Reach 4b1 some slight deposition in upstream portion if max flow is 475 cfs erosion is likely throughout reach if max flow is 4500 cfs Reach 4b2 and 5 continue to degrade with or without project Eastside bypass Overall, will to continue to degrade with or without project 67 SRH-1DV 1D Flow-Sediment-Vegetation Model Modeling Vegetation Response to Management Actions Sedimentation & River Hydraulics Group Technical Service Center, Denver Colorado November 2009 Turlock, CA 68 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 34

35 San Joaquin River Vegetation Studies Predict Hydraulic Capacity Regenerate native cottonwood-willow communities Restrain the spread of invasive riparian vegetation Vegetation to aid fisheries 69 To predict changes in vegetation for estimating future hydraulic capacity with HECRAS, MEI-Tt and EDAW based future vegetation conditions on modeled 350 cfs and 1500 cfs inundation maps. Slide provided by MEI/Tt 70 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 35

36 Vegetation zones designated by Maximum and Mature density Slide provided by MEI/Tt 71 Roughness applied across vegetation zones Existing Conditions Manning's n Elevation (feet, NGVD29) Future Conditions Manning's n.06.1* or * or Slide provided by MEI/Tt Bank Stations 8000 cfs (Local Capacity Discharge, Existing Conditions) cfs (Local Discharge, Existing Conditions) 1500 cfs (Friant Release, Existing Conditions) 1120 cfs (Friant Release, Existing Conditions) 350 cfs (Friant Release, Existing Conditions) 165 Future Vegetation (Maximum Density) *Manning's n-value is reduced from 0.2 to 0.1 Future Vegetation (Maximum or Mature Density) when representing mature vegetation density Ground Station (feet) 72 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 36

37 SRH-1DV SRH-1D is the base model for SRH-1DV Hydraulics: Step-backwater model with steady or unsteady flow capability, computes water surface elevation and hydraulic parameters at specified time steps Sediment transport: is computed at the specified time step for 10 grain sizes at each cross-section providing erosion and deposition, and substrate predictions 73 Since 1999, the Sedimentation and River Hydraulics Group (SRHG) at Reclamation s Technical Service Center has used 1D models to study linkages between management actions, flow regime, sediment transport, riparian vegetation and species habitat in river environments. Platte River- SedVeg-Gen3 for avian habitat, forage fish habitat, native vegetation and river morphology studies (fully braided river) Sacramento River- SRH-1DV for native vegetation studies San Joaquin River- SRH-1DV for native vegetation, invasive vegetation and hydraulic capacity studies. Dr. Blair Greimann is the author of SRH-1DV vegetation code with Dr. Victor Huang also supporting code development. 74 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 37

38 SRH-1DV -Linking Physical and Ecological Processes to Management Actions Physical Processes In addition to hydraulic and sediment transport computations, estimates groundwater elevation based on river water surface elevation, and specified soil permeability Ecological Processes Germination, growth and mortality of native vegetation Germination, growth and mortality of invasive vegetation 75 Vegetation Types Selected as: species of interest, representative of a community, or geomorphically significant. -Natives: Fremont cottonwood Gooding s black willow Narrow-leaf willow -Invasives: Red sesbania Giant reed (Arundo) -For computations: dry land grass no-grow areas Red sesbania Giant reed 76 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 38

39 1D models represent ground surface with cross sections and flow in one directiondownstream. San Joaquin River studies uses 300 cross sections with approximately 80 points per cross section. Every point can potentially support all six plant types or a no-grow designation. In addition to flow and sediment transport computations, SRH-1DV can track: age, root growth, stem growth, canopy growth, growth seasons, germination periods, seed viability, distance to groundwater, capillary fringe, and mortality (removal) due to scour, desiccation, inundation, competition, shading, and senescence. for: each plant type, at every point, at every cross section, on every flow day, in modeled reach for the period of study. 77 Model cross section with water table, vegetation stems and vegetation roots 78 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 39

40 Systemwide General Results Relative comparison of alternatives Total Area of Vegetation and Mortalities Native Baseline Native Alternative A Invasives Baseline Invasives Alternative A Area (sft) scour innundation desication shade/competition plant productivity Mortality Mechanism or Plant Productivity 79 Once established, invasive vegetation persists as a thin ribbon of coverage along the river bank Giant reed Red sesbania 80 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 40

41 Systemwide Reach Results- Relative Comparison of Alternatives Average Plant Productivity Width (Plant Productivity Area/Reach Length, ft) Baseline Alt A Average Native Vegetation Width for Baseline and Alternative A flow regimes R1A R1B R2A R2B R3 R4A R4B1 R4B2 R5A R5B 81 Reach -Confirmed relation between Mendota Pool water surface, groundwater elevation, root depth, and persistent vegetation in Reach 2B -Detected sensitive threshold in Reach 4A between vegetation establishment in overbank areas, Program flows and typical root growth depths. 82 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 41

42 Systemwide Reach Results Native Vegetation Mortality 700 scour width drowning width dry width comp width Ave Width (ft) R1A-Base R1A-AltA R1B-Base R1B-AltA R2A-Base R2A-AltA R2B-Base R2B-AltA R3-Base R3-AltA R4A-Base R4A-AltA R4B1*475-Base R4B1*475-AltA R4B2-Base R4B2-AltA R5A-Base R5A-AltA R5B-Base R5B-AltA Reach 83 Series of sensitivity studies- examples: root growth rates, groundwater conductivity, historical flows 250 Hist Baseline BaseK500 BaseRt1.5 K500Rt1.5cm Alt A Rt1.5K500 Average Plant Productivity Width (Plant Productivity Area/Reach Length, ft) R1A R1B R2A R2B Reach 84 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 42

43 General analysis of Levee Setbacks in Reach 2B 85 Results to date available in PEIS/R Appendix N- Summary of Geomorphology, Sediment Transport and Vegetation Appendix N, Attachment 6- SRH-1DV vegetation modeling 86 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 43

44 Future Directions- Analysis Aid Design of Reach 4B1 Automated predictions of channel resistance for computations of future hydraulic capacity Continue alternatives analysis for: expansion of native vegetation restraint of invasive vegetation Potential Applications: test vegetation removal strategies for conveyance and control of invasive vegetation provide support to fisheries habitat studies 87 Associated Model Development Model verification Groundwater model predictions using Vegetation Studies (SAIC, 2002 and 2003) Spread of invasives using 2000 mapping, 2008 invasive mapping, 2010 spring flows field review Elevation establishment and mortality (dessication, scour, innundation) using vegetation monitoring cross sections, SAIC reports (2002, 2003) and 2010 field reviews Expand model capabilities link vegetation growth or removal to channel resistance (hydraulic capacity) add large-scale vegetation density capabilities add function relating Fremont cottonwood and Gooding s black willow seed release to temperature (Stillwater Science, 2006) 88 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 44

45 Groundwater 89 Groundwater Hydrograph Reach 4A; 1-2 miles from SJ River; alfalfa 90 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 45

46 Groundwater 91 Groundwater The hydrographs & water-table maps are being used for: Development of monitoring thresholds Identification of areas likely susceptible to seepage impacts Analysis of water-table response to local precipitation Model calibration 92 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 46

47 Groundwater Texture of aquifer sediments is important: Shallow silt & clay = drainage problem More sand = more connected to river and to local pumping Texture distribution greatly influences groundwater flow The more we know about texture, the better 93 Groundwater We know a little bit about texture now, but need better resolution 94 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 47

48 Groundwater Incorporation of more (and better) texture data: Improved texture distribution Improved simulation models Improved prediction of impacts 95 USGS Central Valley Hydrologic Model Published, public domain Water budget built in Simulates Surface water Agriculture Subsidence Etc. 96 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 48

49 Groundwater USGS Central Valley model, spatially refined, will be used to: Help guide groundwater monitoring Predict impacts under various conditions Test the effectiveness of potential actions for avoiding impacts Quantify seepage losses and distribution 97 2D Hydraulics 98 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 49

50 Purpose 2D Hydraulics Provides input for habitat evaluation Provides input for analysis of potential morphology responses 99 2D Hydraulics Why 2D? Lateral and longitudinal flow patterns Helps in the analysis of floodplain processes More dependable local velocities and shear stresses for designs Model Objectives Provide high-resolution hydraulic information to help assess aquatic and riparian habitat conditions increase understanding of the levee capacities and potential improvements to design 100 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 50

51 2D Hydraulics Reclamation s SRH-2D model (Lai, 2006) Two-dimensional, depth-averaged model that simulates hydraulics Model Progress Reach 1A & 2B: preliminary model developed and calibrated Reach 1B, 2A, & 4B: mesh developed; models require calibration 101 2D Hydraulics Input: Topography & bathymetry obtained from hydrographic and photogrammetric surveys Channel roughness polygons (7 Zones) Development of a computational mesh Flow boundary conditions Steady State 102 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 51

52 2D Hydraulics Surface Development Hydrographic and photogrammetric surveys Final models will incorporate new LiDAR Example from Reach 2B 103 Friant Computational Mesh (1A) -> Structured main channel mesh ft laterally ft longitudinally -> Unstructured floodplain -> Control lines along major breaks: Overbank points; Drop structures; Side channel entrances; Hwy Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 52

53 Roughness Zones 2D Hydraulics 105 2D Hydraulics Sample Mesh (2B) ft laterally ft longitudinally Roughness Zones - Light blue = main channel - light green = light vegetation - dark green = heavy vegetation -gray = levee. 106 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 53

54 2D Hydraulics Model Output: Water Surface Elevation Water Depth Velocity (Vector & Magnitude) Froude Number Bed Shear For sediment incipient motion analysis 107 Sample Results 1A-01 Approximately 1-mile 108 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 54

55 2D Hydraulics Sample Results Depth (m) Water Depth (m) 350 cfs 1500 cfs 4500 cfs 109 2D Hydraulics Sample Results Velocity Velocity (m/s) 350 cfs 1500 cfs 2500 cfs 4500 cfs Side Channel 110 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 55

56 2D Hydraulics Example analysis Habitat Example Habitat Distribution using Froude Number Criteria: Pools: 0.0 < Fr < 0.09 Glides: 0.09 < Fr < 0.42 Riffles: Fr > 0.42 Based on (Hilldale & Mooney, Identifying Stream Habitat Features With a Two- Dimensional Hydraulic Model, USBR, Tech Series No. TS-YSS-12) where they found good correspondence between the Froude No. and the different habitat on the Yakima River in Washington D Hydraulics Example Distribution of Pools, Glides, & Riffles 350 cfs 1500 cfs 2500 cfs 4500 cfs Froude Number Riffles 0.42 Glides 0.09 Pools 112 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 56

57 2D Hydraulics Lateral Variability Across Channel XS Elevation (m) Bed El (m) WSE (m) Velocity Bed shear Froude N V e loc ity (m /s ), Froude N., O R S he a r (ps f) Station (m ) 113 2D Hydraulics Example Results Reach 2B Depth and Velocity Distribution Plots Quantify total areas within specified ranges Useful for habitat suitability analyses Depth Distribution at a Flow of 1357 cfs Area (sqft) 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000, ,000 Velocity Distribution at a Flow of 1357 cfs 1,400, ,200, Velocity (ft/s) 1,000,000 Area (sqft) 800, , , , Depth (ft) Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 57

58 2D Hydraulics Additional 2D Applications Vegetation: input for simulating establishment and mortality of riparian species Provides input for analysis of sediment dynamics; bar formation and riffle erosion Roughness: variability in lateral roughness based on vegetation and sediment dynamics Levee Design: sensitivity studies for impacts of changing height or location, or both 115 Fisheries Using the Ecosystem Diagnosis & Treatment Model to help guide fish restoration actions Shannon Brewer, FMWG 116 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 58

59 Fisheries Unique Challenges 117 Fisheries Adaptive Management 118 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 59

60 Fisheries EDT & Adaptive Management FMWG Management Actions EDT analysis 119 Information in EDT Level of Aggregation Statistical Analyses Raw Data HSI Population Models IBM EDT Framework HEC-*.* Operations Resolution 120 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 60

61 EDT overview Rule-based model multiple-stage Beverton-Holt production model First, life stage performance benchmarks are defined (and adjusted for existing conditions) A rules set is created - describes the habitat needs of the species of interest (declining from benchmark performance) Life-history trajectories - how environmental conditions are experienced by the fish Performance is compared under template and patient conditions and is the basis of a diagnosis of factors limiting the population 121 EDT overview Provides a process for moving forward with restoration actions, even when faced with uncertainty Analytical model- links actions to desired outcomes Template Provides a basis for conclusions about the limitations of the system (or a particular action) Patient 122 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 61

62 EDT- geometry 123 Focal species life-history experience 124 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 62

63 EDT Diagnostic Landscape Relative Survival Experienced by Yearling Coho in Johnson Creek Current Template n Oct Smolt Jan April Incubation Colonize April O c t Jan Res Rear Inactive July P r s p S pawn Oct Smo t Jan April Rear e Inacti April July Jan Res Oct Incubation Prspn Colonize Spawn 125 How will FMWG use EDT Assist with the assessment of restoration alternatives Identify key uncertainties, data needs, and testable hypotheses Evaluate & refine our conceptual model 126 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 63

64 Geographic area report one strategy for prioritization 127 EDT summary 128 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 64

65 Restoration possibilities Possible restoration alternative 129 Next steps Complete baseline model (current versus template) Currently here Identify list of alternatives and data necessary to evaluate those alternatives Implement Monitor Adapt Plans, Goals, & Objectives Revisit EDT 130 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 65

66 Possible evaluations using EDT Spatial extent of floodplain (2B, 4B, 5) 4B flows (how much Q in bypass versus channel) Compare to our conceptual model- Is one factor really more important than another? Credit: Stillwater science 131 Next Meeting January Potential Future Meeting Topics Program EIS/R 132 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 66

67 133 Draft, For Discussion Purposes Only 67